Spot The Experiment Design Flaw

Feminist quasiovums are crowing about a recent “”””social experiment“””” (via Cheap Chalupas, may the appellation forever stick to him), purporting to find that MEN ARE JUST LIKE WOMEN because a woman who went around asking random men for sex received a mere 30% positive replies, supposedly rebutting previous studies which found that upwards of 80-90% of men would agree to casual sex with an attractive female stranger while 0% of women would agree to casual sex with an attractive male stranger.

Feminists love to push any phony fake-out “social science” if it helps alleviate their pain of accepting that men and women are different in many important and crucial respects. The problem is that nearly every feminist-assuaging study they cite to buttress their twisted cause turns out later to be built atop a mound of bullshit. For instance, in this latest shrike salvo, can you spot the experiment design flaw?

Related

155 Responses

HOWEVER, if a woman asks you straight out of the blue, in the street, when you have never met her before, you can be sure it is a trap of some sort. There are cameras nearby, either people from a TV show or her friends looking to post your picture online.

Suppose instead that it happened in the bar and after talking for a while. Then far more of the men would say yes.

I would also suspect that some large percentage of the other 70% were skeptical this was real. It depends on what ‘female stranger’ means. Someone who literally just walked up to you? Someone you don’t know, but were chatting with for a bit? In the latter case, if the guy gets a feeling she is for real, sure. A random chick walking up and saying “hey, let’s ball!” would certainly have me skeptical…

Did she make the marriage crack with all of the other men? I didn’t watch very much of it. It was intolerable.

The only other thing I could think of that hasn’t really been said to death is that the experiment itself does not at all prove what the article claims. Both the chick in Whatever and the Swedish chick mentioned in the opening credits got between 30% and, what appeared to be in Sweden, 90% positive responses. It’s just a flat out lie.

” A random chick walking up and saying “hey, let’s ball!” would certainly have me skeptical…”

is she worth getting killed over? a true hottie that offers this is out for revenge on her man. It does happen and you can benefit because it will be down and dirty ape fun. But after they make up and she gets drunk and points you out one night then what happens?

The guy in Whatever asked mostly young attractive women in their prime.

In return the hot girl asked a variety of men – guys working, waiting on their girlfriends, too old men, very ugly men. If she had picked only men she found attractive just like the male crew, then the success rate would have been much higher – way above 50%. A 65 year old silverfox with a pot-belly is not going to be convinced that a hot 20 year old filly just wants to have sex with him.

You will see that practically all of the men with some Game or sexual “entitlement” reacted within a second to it. “Sure why not, I have fucked chicks like that, so why not get that notch too?”

Also even in the bloody fake test the difference between 1/100 and 30/100 is 3000%, so it’s substantial. Plus in one of the male videos he pickup up women in Las Vegas and the women were either prostitutes or just said yes to get some drinks as they were in a group.

Quick hail mary openers are extremely hard even for good-looking men with Game. The success rate is very low unless you are a celebrity.

The flaw of this study is simply the age old adage- If it looks too good to be true, than it probably is. I guarantee that 99% of the guys who answered “no” were saying so because they figured when an attractive girl approaches you during the middle of the day propositioning a freebie, there’s definitely a catch. That catch could have been anything from being caught accepting sex by their significant other, to catching a non-curable STD.
And to that point, any self-respecting guy in this situation *should* say no. The one’s who did say yes clearly are sex-starved betas who would jump at the chance to stick their dick in any wet hole. Add 30 pounds to this chick and they would still take her home.
Final point- if they make this situation a bit more believable for the guys, there’s no way they don’t get at least an 80% yes rate. Instead of going right up to the guy and asking to bone, say they had her start a conversation, chat a bit, and suggest sex after building even the most minuscule amount of comfort/believably in the situation (basically run a small amount of girl game first) Guarantee at least 80% of the guys would go “all cockas on deck” and bang that pirate whore.

Big city police departments run this type of thing as a “prostitution sting” all the time. Anybody with brains would recognize it in a New York minute! Land you in jail for a couple of days until the DA allows you to bail out upon a plea of guilty. Otherwise they keep you in jail indefinitely until a kangaroo trial can be held.

Had greed card client fall for that while driving his work vehicle, a hot chick
(a whored-up undercover police officer) jumped in his cab and asked him if he wanted to party and told him to drive around the corner. There, waiting cops arrested him and seized his $30K pickup, as “property used in the commission of a crime”. It took him $2,500 just to get the truck back and another $1,000 in fines on the soliciting charge. A big time revenue raising scam.

How does that work? Wouldn’t be able to say he thought she’d take him to a real party in court? It’s what I’d do. lol. And since the truck was business property, you could make up some damages that arose in the business due to not having access to the truck and sue the police officers in question.

PWN, you clearly believe the US court system is about “truth and justice” when its about neither.

To challenge a City PD’s actions in court would take at least $50K to reach the initial decision at the lowest level court. Double that amount for an appeal and still there’s no guarantee of success and you bear your own court costs and attorneys’ fees.

So you spend all that $100K to maybe save/recover $3,500, MAYBE??? LOL!!!

Oh, did you watch that all by your self on YouTube? It’s adorable that you can’t support a single thing you say with fact, but feel totally justified quoting Jennifer Anniston(!?!) movies and illuminate YouTube videos that bored housewives watch.
When my girlfriend shows me the same shit you spout, you know you’re a faggot.

The movie thwack refers to is “Derailed”. You see a guy talk to a woman on the train a few times on his way to work. One day she suggests they have sex. She seems to change her mind in the taxi looking for a hotel, calls it off, but as they step out they find they are right outside a hotel and she agrees because it looks like destiny.

When in the hotel room a criminal breaks in, beats up the guy and rapes her. It is a rather vicious scene. When the guy comes to, she says they should forget it ever happened. But the criminal has their wallets and is blackmailing the guy, who is married

The criminal and Jennifer Aniston were working together. He finds out eventually, after his life is destroyed. He sneaks into the hotel and sees her bring another man to the same hotel room. The criminal is waiting together with the receptionist. When he enters the hotel room, the main character also goes in. Tries to explain the situation to the new victim, who is not exactly as likable as he is. Shots are fired and Jennifer Aniston dies.

The main character is sentenced to community service, I forget why. He teaches a class in a prison as his community service. The criminal is there, for the scam and killing. He tries to blackmail the main character – who reveals that he chose this prison for this reason, and stabs the man to death.

And now you know.

It seems Jennifer Aniston has the same sad face in most of her movies. A better movie by this one, where she has the same face, is the one where she works behind a cash register and is married to a pot-smoking couch potato. She meets another guy with dreams, is going to run away with him, but realizes he is all talk and will never do anything about his life. She goes back home to her husband. It is a sad story about everyday life and the hopelessness many feel when they’re stuck in dead-end jobs and live in an atomized society. Pretty well made.

If a woman walked up and simply asked if I wanted to have sex, any sign of deception that belied genuine desire would be very telling. Aside from genuine desire, mental instability or sinister motives are the only other motivators. A hard 10 MIGHT be worth taking a gamble on my kidneys, but not a “visible” woman like the one in the video.

James Blonde: Show me a joo who claims to have produced any original cultural artifact and I’ll show you who he stole it from.

Show me a muhdikk that was able to build a lasting structure and well fuck the joke- we all know you don’t have anything to point to except those nice plantation mansions in the deep south. Lolzlooolz
:darwinquote: “Never dreamed a sail…”

I’m from Dixie, kiddo. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had the war against the King, the rest of us were warring Parliament. King George just let the whole ship sink before he knew the whole story, I’m afraid. What is it with you blacks and not realizing the difference between Protestant and Catholic, Huguenot and adult. Most browns don’t know the difference. Besides, I doubt there were any black witnesses. You’re on-the-spot needs a little work. Game can help with that.

After the Tea Party, individuals franchised violence to the State and we all followed the Rule of Law. Which suits everyone except the blacks … collectively they just can’t seem to get with the program. Immigrants can at least be given credit for girding up their loins and making a go of it elsewhere – and for the most part respecting the collective Rule of Law.

A woman ALMOST got away with robbing and killing a married man when she answer his Craigslist ad seeking anonymous gay sex at a motel; she knew the police would be looking for a man and even left “man things” at the crime scene.

Doesn’t this contradict the message of the other hidden camera experiment with the actress who was pretending to be drunk and had pretty much every man who passed by try to have an assignation with her to “rape” her (because Chardonnay)?

Well, which is it? Are men all rapists in waiting who will not only fuck strangers but rape them, or are the sexes the same?

The design flaw, as pointed out above, is that the offer is transparently a ruse. People – women especially – simply don’t say “will you have sex with me?” There was absolutely no feminine game going on – no feint or coyness, no ambiguous messages, no genuine indicators of interest (hair fixing, touching the man, etc.).

It’s like trying to extrapolate that because a fish won’t bite your lure, they must never eat.

on the sex thing
i think its that woman think about sex more because they are usually not the ones to initiate it therefore the sex does not happen at known intervals which keeps them contantly thinking when they gonna get it
while a lot of guys not of course all when they want to have sex they think about it and then go fuck their girlfriend wife whatever and mission accomplished move on to the next item on agenda
the man also can only do it so many time in a day or what not
while the woman right after having sex can start thinking about when she is gonna have it again
woman may be pickier bout who they fuck in more cases but i think they actually think about it more and plan it
ask a man how many times he has fucked his girlfriend wife he prob won’t know
ask the woman and she will

in the alternative, it comes down to the fundamental premise and the vast differences between men and women. everyone (i.e., both men and women) KNOWS (innately and deep down) that women do not operate in this matter. therefore, when a woman acts completely out of character like this, a wise man acknowledges that there is something WRONG with the scenario and extricates/excuses himself immediately from the situation, even though he may otherwise want to act on his natural sexual impulse. obviously, some men are too unwise and/or too controlled by their sexual urges to recognize the inherent danger in such a proposition.

Not the biggest problem but textbook femlogic: “it’s possible that the stereotype [of men wanting sex more than women] took root in 1989,” and it goes on to describe a previous study. It’s good to know how to cite, but when you are so detached from reality that you hang on the date cranked out by a LexisNexus search, despite clear and overwhelming pop cultural and for that matter Biblical contradiction, knowledge is bent against itself.

The fact that 30 percent said ‘Yes’ despite the obvious inherent danger is very telling of how much greater the male sex drive is than a woman’s.

Honestly if some girl asks a guy out of the blue in the middle of the day in public to screw, there has to be huge alarm bells going off in their head. Despite knowing that there is a great chance that they are going to be mugged and beaten/killed, or the girl is just insane and is probably STD ridden, 30 percent of men still say yes.

30 percent of men would take a chance with straight up death to fuk a hot girl. How in the holy hell did the article not comprehend this very simple concept is beyond me.

Not so much a design flaw as an intellectually dishonest conclusion. 30% yes versus zero or 1% is still a hugely significant difference. I disagree with the “STD” reason for saying no, though, since that would also apply to women. All things being equal, the sex difference in receptivity to casual sex is always profound and feminists simply refuse to acknowledge it despite any amount of evidence.

The design flaw would be revealed by whether or not she actually fucked all the men who said “yes.” I suspect not, making her a liar, and why would one trust a lying whore or her “statistics.” (And who knows how she selectively edited the video.)

There are really only two appropriate responses:

“Sure!” [put her hand on your crotch] “Let’s go, right here, right now.”

A woman asking for sex is not that unusual is it? I can see a Miss Hottie McHot 2 Trot to be a bit of a surprise but not that uncommon. As for a mediocre to ugly ho, you should be getting their come ons on a regular basis unless you act like wussbag.

When you show me a woman that can have 10,000 off-spring like Genghis Kan and other men, I’ll give you a point in that direction, when you find a woman that can bench-press within 100 lbs of the men’s record, I’ll give you a point. But come on… Men and women are NOTHING alike – we f**k them, and they f**k us – that is pretty much where the intersection ends these days. Once upon a time men and women were complementary – those days are over. These days women are to f**k and forget… Anyone that says differently is trying to sell you something…

And don’t let women say anything negative about that, as it was their choice. So enjoy, but always remember women are a commodity to be used, bought, and sold… Maybe not with dollars – but there is definitely a currency to get any woman. Fame is probably the biggest – but certainly not the best… But it’s up there…

Yeah sure poindexters. This is straight up stupid even for sociologists who even other scientists consider about as scientific as astrologers. What are you kidding me? Woman goes up to strange men and offers sex? What are the chances she’s not a hooker or a cop? This whole science thing has jumped the shark. Maybe they should start teaching alchemy at college this is just embarrassing!

Imagine if the definition of “significant” used in this article was applied to other kinds of research. If a new drug was found to cure Alzheimer’s disease with a 30% success rate, would this result be reported as not significant? 30% is not significantly better than 0%, so the drug should not be approved? That is the sort of magnitude we are talking about, and yet they manage to conclude that “men aren’t significantly more likely to jump at the chance to have casual sex than women are.” It just boggles the mind that they can say this with a straight face. A flat-out denial of reality for the sake of political correctness.

happened to me at oktoberfest and i didn’t get killed but the husband watched in the rear view mirror of his truck. still– not bad. should be higher than 30% even with the risks, come on and live a little

i imagine if i was approached like that when i was younger i would’ve jumped at the chance. but now? i dunno. potential for stds, getting robbed, accused of rape, or even just recorded and put out on the internet. seems way too risky for this old man.

but kudos to you. i’ve read a lot of your comments and you tend to downplay it for sure but from what i gather, you’ve been more of a ladies man than most of the guys on here. including me. it’s inspiring. thanks.

In social science, especially in an experiment like this, the experimenter interacting with subjects should be blind to the hypothesis being tested.

The 1989 Clark and Hatfield study mentioned in the page linked to had it right. Asking a random sample of unwitting subjects to proposition other random subjects of the opposite sex. 70 percent seems about right to me with that methodology.

With what was done in this video, the experimenter can give all kinds of subtle cues pushing the guys to give the answer they want. In addition they can exhibit selection bias- choosing guys that seem likely to give the answer they want. You should notice there were more yes answers in the beginning and more no answers later. She gradually got better at getting the answer she wanted later. (The video seemed to be in chronological order). I skipped around and didn’t watch the whole thing, but I also noticed a larger proportion of guys saying they were gay (or that came across as really obviously gay without saying it) than exist in the general population. To me that is a red flag as to the biases (either conscious or not) of those making the video. By the way the real proportion of gays is between 2 and 3 percent; the 10% number that gets repeated a lot is bullshit.

In a nutshell, if they wanted an answer of 0/100 or an answer of 100/100 she (and the people working with her) could “discover” whatever they wanted to discover. It’s not science with this methodology.

She looks good by the way. I would sleep with her. As a woman of course that’s the only thing she’s here on this planet for. Just a reminder

The good admiral Ackbar said it best, “It’s a trap!”. Any man with something to lose should say ‘no’ if he has any brains and self control. Is sex with her worth losing everything?

Hidden camera show, social experiment, set up so her bf can be jealous and violent, a robbery, she’s a cop and she’s doing it in a way that’s technically a crime, a shakedown with a pimp charging after the fact, she’s actually a tranny, she’s looking to get pregnant for monetary and other reasons, and who knows what else. Nothing good can likely come from it.

There might not even be a woman attractive enough to cover all that risk.

Once I was at a town festival and these teenage girls said I looked like I needed a hug and were going to hug me if I let them. I looked around like the second guy in the video and then moved on. They were probably sincere but I’m not touching 15-16 year old girls I’ve never seen before. Not even on a public sidewalk out in front of everyone. (I was ~2X their age at the time)

One thing I saw in the comments above was that bold women are unattractive. I don’t mind ‘bold’ women and I don’t think most men would if it’s done right. Asking for sex first thing on approach on the street isn’t just bold it’s six sigma outlier crazy bold.

James Blonde said that Jesus was
“Stolen from assorted Egyptian funeral texts and passion plays”
Just so. Any study of comparative religion will tell you Christianity is Religion’s Greatest Hits. Virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection…all cherry picked from earlier religions. It’s certainly at least one reason why Christianity becasme so popular. Presses all the right buttons like a James Cameron script.

There are a lot of intelligent people who doubt the historical Jesus even existed, though they’re admittedly in the minority. He Who Must Not Be Drawn, on the other hand, is a solid historical figure. He really existed, and really married a 9 year-old girl.

TSW’s tale of his friend cold-approaching, acting like he already knew the girl:
80% scurried away.
15% scurried away AND found help
5% were intrigued and continued the conversation.
Well, there’s your proof that there is indeed an objective demonstration of what a “creep” is: A man whose approach causes 95% of girls to flee and KEEPS DOING IT.

Of course, the particular opener doesn’t matter as much as the physicality and overall vibe of the guy. A relaxed, grinning Erroll Flynn clone is going to scare away 5%, not 95%. Context and congruity are key.

This actually happened to me once in a Walmart. Here I am, loser nerd 18yo and this two cute girls approach me, 6.5-7.5ish.
The ask me flat out if I want to fuck.
Somehow I didn’t shit myself and managed to say yeah, and we arranged it for later that night.
I drive out to the middle of fucking nowhere, like cow fields. I come across this pack of kids riding a 4 wheeler, mind you, it’s like 3am.
I finally find the girls, I grab a blanket and walk her out in the middle of a fucking cowfield and railed her out like she wronged me.
Basking in the afterglow, I hear shouting from the farm(?) and she gets all scared.
I don’t wait to find out what her dad thinks of me, I hightailed it out of there.
Never spoke to her again.

I suspect many of us have missed the point. 30% said yes and according to the “results” that means that men are no more horny and ready to jump anybody than women are.

Supposedly. But obviously BS.

I mean, you can try this as a “thought experiment” yourself (boy, do I *hate* that phrase, “thought experiment”! It’s not a $#&*^ing experiment, you idiot! You are just thinking! Arrrg! But I digress), ask random women on the street for no strings sex. Or better yet, try it in real life (probably best to clear your experimenter status with the local 5-0 prior). Go on, buddy. You can do it. After all, 30% of guys said yes and girls are just as ready to hop in the sack with some random stranger asking for a quick lay.

Clearly this is nonsense. I mean, if guys could nail 30% hit rates doing *anything* that takes just a few minutes, we’d all be experts at whatever that was, whether it was cornhole, balancing a quarter on its side, naming all the presidents backwards, hopping on one leg backwards reciting the Greek alphabet, you name it. 30% success rate? Damn! We’d be spending more money, supplements and time trying for the stamina for 6 or 7 bangs a day.

Anyway, it is simply insane to say that since 70% of guys say no to instance sex, that men are just like women when it comes to quick hookups. Nearly 100% of women will say no. Perhaps 30% would consider calling the cops – bet no guys called the cops on this broad.

Also, this is further evidence that broads just can’t do science. !Science!

Old geezer called the cops? Sheesh. Maybe he was trying to do the right thing since she was clearly nuts.

Years ago (I am not young and this was way before my time), some newsguy stood out on the street maybe in NYC offering free Jacksons – free $20 bills. Got no takers – or so the story goes. The presumption is that most people assumed some mischief was afoot – why would somebody just hand out twenties?

It’d be interesting to know how true that story is and if it is true to contrast it with our 30 percenters.

There is an experiment where I think it was mark dice tried to sell a $20 gold piece or gold eagle at face value or way below market in any case. He used this as proof of the ignorance of the public regarding money, gold, etc. The reality is likely most people assumed it was some sort of scam.

the design flaw is that she didnt actually have sex with them. so all it really tested was which men were naive, stupid or desperat enough to accept a fraudulent offer of sex and fall for a fake out. the situation was not real in any respect, and the men who said no obviously were aware something was fishy. it proves that 30% of men are stupid enough to accept a phoney sex offer from a complete strranger only to wind up with blue balls.

Their explanation is this: “Translation: If women feel safe around the dude and they’re attracted to him, they’re just as likely to have a sweaty, nails-in-back, no-strings-attached one-night-stand as men are. ”

To prove that women are just as sexual as men, they asked them if they’d have sex with Johnny Depp. Yeah, that’s real comforting – if she gets a Johnny Depp and feels really safe, your girlfriend will be just as sexual as you.

If most men look below average to most women, we have a difficult obstacle in our way to making men and women sexually equal.

You can probably manipulate the level of fear, though. Feminist sex laws are already doing that for the men, I would say. You can try to embolden the women, too. This might temporarily make the men look somewhat less sexual, without changing anything about human nature. If anything, this experiment could potentially prove that fear matters and men are not so sexual that they think solely with their dicks.

This Science would seem stronger if The Girl had just started to do the guy, right there in the street, after his tentative, worried answer, “yes.”
Since that happened at an average rate of fuck all; why are we still talking about this?

Her approach induces a mass raising of red flags, it’s sooooo fake. Her body language is not that of a horny chick, quite the contrary (look for crossed arms, backward leaning, etc): it oozes revulsion. Her voice tonality is also incongruent with the message. No sane woman proposes directly and that fast (compare how often did your fuckbuddy/girlfriend /wife do that?). A horny girl would compliment first, chit chat for a minute at least and then would propose to look for an intimate location with a BS pretext, the subject of sex would at best be alluded to.

I’d say sure, if you’ll give me money for it. In all seriousness though, who would think this is real? I haven’t heard of anyone that doesn’t have groupies have random women walk to them and offer sex. They should have used a natural venue like a party.

The difference between actual social science research and these pseudo-experiments is that, with real research, there are experimental controls put in place to reduce bias and alternative explanations for the findings. For example, the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study standardized what was said by the experimental assistants to ask for sex, so that each participant received exactly the same believable message. Specifically they said, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

Additionally, Clark and Hatfield (1989) used multiple experimental assistants to control for differences in attractiveness. Also, the assistants were asked to only request sex from believable partners (college students, relatively the same age, and attractive to them). Finally, participants were approached during times when they were most likely to have free time for sex (weekdays and not between class periods).

We see none of these experimental controls in the pseudo-experiment video. The woman is inconsistent with her approach and how she asks for sex. Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request. She also approaches many men who are not plausible sex partners for her, who are busy with their day, or who are otherwise unavailable for immediate sex.

Nevertheless, when she does approach men that she finds sexually attractive, who are plausible sex partners, who are available, and her request to them is more complementary and believable, then she more often gets a yes (for example, see video at 1:54 with guy in blue shirt). In fact, simply taking the men out of the analysis who are clearly considerably older than her (10), state they are too busy to go with her immediately (9), say they have a girlfriend and cannot have sex with her (12), or tell her they are gay (3), begins to increase her probability of getting a yes to sex (28/66 = 42%). If she only approached men that she actually found sexually attractive, used a standardized and believable request for sex, and hid the camera too, then it is quite possible that her rate of success would be even higher and better match those of actual studies that used such experimental controls. In fact, more recent experimental studies, following those controls and protocols, have indeed found similar results as the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiments (for more, see Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).

The design flaw is that only crazy women, whores, vice cops pretending to be whores, and women who are leading you into harm (do the vice cops count in this category too?) offer sex to men on the street.

Dress like a “nice girl” and offer to meet for drinks later at a public bar in the not shitty section of town and she’ll easily get to 75% or higher.

Biggest design flaw is comparing 30% yes from men to 1% yes from women and saying “See, we’re all the same. Less than half of either gender says yes.” For every woman who said yes, 30 men said yes.

Next, as sooo many commenters have pointed out, her proposal is the same proposal that prostitutes and thieves make. Many of the noes were not noes to casual sex, but no to whatever is most likely to happen after the offer.

My third point would probably be my first if this footage was unedited. I’m guessing that many of the noes initial reaction was to look around for cameras. Aside from the chances that she’s a prostitute, I’m sure many guys first thought was that their wife or girlfriend hired somebody to test their faithfulness.

Also, 3 guys said outright, no because they were gay. Of the “I’m good” responses, I got the impression that 8 total guys said no because they were gay. If true, then this is not a sample that represents the general population.

Next, some of noes didn’t say no. They said they have a girlfriend and waited to see if that was a dealbreaker for her. It was.

One guy was a yes, until she said that he was going to play catcher. They didn’t count his response as a yes or no in the tally.

Finally, compare the two videos of the man asking women and the woman asking men. The men who say no often try to negotiate or show that they are interested but don’t have the nerve. The women who say no often bluntly say no and many take offense.

When it comes down to it, the article claims that these videos disprove that 80% of guys would say yes to casual sex. 80% of those guys showed an interest. It would be hard to measure objectively, but I suspect if 80% of the guys in the video thought it was a sincere offer and their girlfriend would not find out, they would say yes.

Side note: I kind of zoned out and might have missed a few pieces here and there. I heard several guys say they have a girlfriend. I didn’t hear any guy say he had a wife. Do you think she didn’t ask any married guys, or do you think married guys are less concerned with the idea that a yes would be cheating?

the design flaw is that only binary answers were expected. Experienced men who want to carry the interaction through to the sexroom wouldn’t just answer with a straight yes but would instead spot the obvious beta bait and first signal abundancy mentality and establish the framework of their phony dialogue in order to successfully get the lay.